Scott Vales Diane Coleman Chang PS 1 23rd November 2015 Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline On November 6th, 2015, President Barrack Obama announced at a White House press conference that his administration will reject the application to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada. This final decision on the keystone XL pipeline comes just over seven years after Trans Canada first applied for the U.S State Departments approval. Trans Canada, the company behind the $8 billion project, has spent $2.5 billion on the project this far, since it put in for the permit to build the pipeline in 2008.The proposed pipeline would have stretched about 1,200 miles over six U.S states, and would have moved over 800,000 barrels of carbon heavy …show more content…
He said that those who were for it highly exaggerated the amount of jobs it would create, and those who were against it exaggerated the hazardous effect that it would have on the environment. State Department reports how that the pipeline would contribute to climate change, but not anymore than the alternative ways of transporting the oil. Barrack Obamas decision won’t affect the export of oil from Canada, it would just increase the distance it would have to travel through the already existing pipelines. Ultimately his main reason for rejecting the pipeline was based on the fact that he wants to establish himself as the first sitting president to ever address global climate change in a big way, and the passing of the pipeline would have hurt his credibility. There are basically two sides when it comes to the keystone XL pipeline, those that support it being built and those that agree with President Barrack Obamas decision to not approve its construction. Those that are against the pipeline have many claims to help support their stance on its construction. Their first claim is that the pipeline will be transporting one of the world’s dirtiest fuels, tar sands oil. Environmentalist groups say that pollution from tar sands is much greater than that of conventional oil. For example just in the process of the tar sands oil production alone, the carbon dioxide emissions are three to four times greater than that of regular oil. With the completion of the pipeline it
Keystone XL is a oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, this system was commissioned in 2010 and now owned by TransCanada Corporation. An increased amount of oil from Canada would mean a decreased dependency on Middle Eastern supplies. According to market principles, if availability of oil is increased, that means lower price for consumers. This will create almost 28,000 more construction jobs. The prospect of the Keystone XL pipeline being approved by the incoming Donald Trump administration will have little effect on Justin Trudeau's plans to get the oil to market. Keystone XL is a controversial issue because the different political parties have different opinions, the Conservatives and the Liberals both agree that yes, Keystone
Canada is benefitting because we are selling and exporting a lot of oil to the USA. The Keystone Pipeline positively helping the US economy and is boosting it. It provides cheap and affordable heating and helps out US and Canadian residents. The Keystone Pipeline is a cheaper and more effective way of transporting oil than transporting it through trucks and ships. Lac Megantic was a train carrying oil the crashed and harmed the environment massively. As well, Exxon Valdez was an oil ship that ran aground in BC and contaminated a lot of water and killed many animals. The Keystone Pipeline has it’s risks but there is less of a chance of it running into an accident than an oil ship or train and is safer for the environment and people living near
The Keystone XL is a controversial oil pipeline extension that would travel from Alberta, Canada, to the United States Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL should not be built because of the damage it would cause to the environment. The oil would be found within tar sands that contain bitumen. The process of extracting the crude oil uses a lot of energy and causes a large amount of greenhouse gases. Many citizens, in Canada and the United States, are outraged because it can be detrimental to the surrounding land and wildlife. TransCanada, the company building the oil pipeline, has to receive permission from the United States government to begin construction. If the United States does not have the pipeline built and chooses to not use Canada’s oil, then TransCanada will have the pipeline built elsewhere and exported to other countries. There has been a divide between those in favor of the Keystone XL and those who are not. The Keystone XL would be able to provide the United States with a reliable source of oil, but it would also take the risk of faults in the oil pipeline and ruining parts of America’s resourceful soil. The Keystone XL will cause a negative effect on the environment and damage resourceful land; therefore, the oil pipeline should not be constructed.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would run from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas. Since this pipeline will cross an international border, the company building it would have to obtain a Presidential Permit from the Department of State. The Keystone XL Pipeline will stretch 1,661 miles and will be 36 inches wide (TransCanada 2012).The southern portion of the pipeline has already been approved; it is the northern portion that is causing controversy in the United States. The pipeline will reduce America’s dependence on unreliable foreign oil and will create “up to 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 spin off jobs during overall construction” ( TransCanada 2012).
The Keystone XL pipeline is a pipeline that runs from Canada to the United States. It would travel from Alberta to the southeast part of Texas next to the Gulf of Mexico, so petroleum products can be transported around the world. This great project would supply petroleum demands and create many jobs. The only thing needed for this project to take off in 2015 is for President Obama to approve it.
The history of oil pipelines in the U.S. supports both sides of the argument, but in the end one must not rely on history to decide whether or not to implement such a controversial pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline could be beneficial to the US economy but the dangers to the environment must be weighed in order to decide if the new oil pipeline is necessary. We live in a world that is trying to switch over to renewable energy and help reduce global warming. The increased production of oil in the United States might not be needed even though it might be beneficial to economic
“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused
As a way to directly link the unrefined tar-sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the refineries in Texas, there is no doubt that the Keystone XL Pipeline remains a topic of controversy. As with many large projects, there are both positive and negative consequences that result from its construction. While there are potential economic benefits like the creation of infrastructure-related jobs and a potential shift from energy dependence, there are many dangers to the building of the pipeline. The notion of building a pipeline that connects Canada and the United States for economic reasons is neither completely unjustifiable nor unreasonable, but given the current circumstances, in which ecological damage and neglect on the part of TransCanada are likely, I cannot support the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Should our president approve this harmful pipeline, he could unite his decision with requirements to reduce the carbon intensity of extracting the tar-sands and processing it.
“For years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I frankly consider an over-inflated role in our political discourse,” said Obama (Article 2, Pg. 2). The Keystone and the Dakota pipeline one of two rejected by government administration. Protest still till this day are being held by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, other Native American tribes, and other supporters, to put a stop to the building of the pipeline which carries crude oil through: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.
In February 9, 2005, the TransCanada proposed a pipeline system that would be able to transport crude oil from Canada into the United States. The pipeline was given the name the Keystone Pipeline System. Originally, the pipeline was to run from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois. However, in 2008 another proposition was raised in order to extend the pipeline even further to down to Texas. The proposition is known as the Keystone XL. The possible construction of the pipeline is a controversial topic. Entrepreneurs believe that such a pipeline will stimulate the nation's economy and lead to an increase in the amount of jobs. On the other side, environmentalists believe that the pipeline will be detrimental for the environment as the
The Keystone XL pipeline would do little in reducing the United States dependency on Middle Eastern oil, which is actually goal established by president Obama for the sake of national security and economic growth. Another issue is that the out of the 42,000 jobs TransCanada has claimed the new pipeline will create, an analysis done by the State Department disagrees and claims “The proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations.” All the harmful effects that the pipeline would have on the environment and the public health is not worth the creation of merely 50 permanent
The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.
The Keystone XL Pipeline has divided North America because it is an enormous environmental issue. It has divided us due to our opinions. Many Americans see the potential it could bring to our country and economy, but there are several environmental problems to consider and health issues to think about before deciding which side to take. Not only do those factors matter but also how it could affect the lives of many Americans. There are two sides to this issue, to either approve or disapprove the Keystone Pipeline project, and by researching I will form an opinion.
With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the